Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN, J
Prahlad Sahai Meena S/o Sh. Surajmal Meena – Appellant
Versus
Chief Executive Officer Admn. Khadi And Village Industries Commission – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Sameer Jain, J.
1. The present petition is filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking appropriate writs, orders, or directions for the protection of fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner invokes the jurisdiction of this Court to challenge an order passed on 02.08.2017, by which the regularization of the petitioner on the post of Class-IV employee was denied, notwithstanding specific and categorical directions issued by the learned Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as the "Tribunal"), the Single Bench of this Court, and the Division Bench of this Court, despite the fact that these directions were upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL APPEARING FOR THE PETITIONER:
2. At the outset, learned counsel had contended that the petitioner was initially appointed as a Class IV employee by the respondents on 17.09.1992. However, the services of the petitioner were terminated on 30.07.1994. The petitioner, aggrieved by his termination, approached the learned Tribunal, which, after a p
Withdrawal of regularization based on educational qualifications after judicial directions is arbitrary and violates fundamental rights under Articles 14, 16, and 21.
The court established that employees appointed under the same selection process are entitled to equal treatment and regularization, reinforcing the principle of non-discrimination under Article 14.
Regularization of employees must comply with the principles laid down by the Supreme Court, and any regularization contrary to these principles is illegal.
An employee's continuous service is recognized once a termination is set aside, impacting their eligibility for regularization despite initial appointment irregularities.
The court emphasized fair treatment and equal pay, mandating regularization of long-serving employees who were arbitrarily excluded from benefits, thereby reinforcing principles of equality under Art....
The denial of regularization to similarly situated employees constitutes discrimination under Article 14 of the Constitution, justifying judicial intervention to restore equitable treatment.
The court ruled that administrative decisions regarding employment regularization must avoid arbitrary discrimination and adhere to principles of equal treatment under the law.
The appointment of similarly situated persons under available vacancies can distinguish a case from precedents and influence the court's decision on regularization.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
